Monday, March 12, 2012

Offensiveness does not make you a better economist

"It's almost like you have to say socially unacceptable things once in a while just to prove you're a real economist." - a University of Michigan economics PhD candidate

A few posts ago, I lambasted Steve Landsburg for attempting to justify Rush Limbaugh's request for a sex tape from Sandra Fluke. My post took the offensiveness of Landsburg's post as a given, and focused on the logical errors contained in the argument. However, there is another point I would like to make about the post: It provides a clear illustration of how offensiveness itself has become a part of the culture of the economics profession.

A lot of people don't get "thinking like an economist" when they see it, and what I think Landsburg is doing here is "thinking like an economist", not being a jerk...

Thinking like an economist simply means that you scientifically approach human social behavior - which means that you approach them like any other species of animal. Nobody judges animals when they behave in ways that we would consider horrendous in other humans. They're just... animals. And that's what you really need for good social science. You need to look at your fellow humans as "just animals". Astonishing, wondrous animals to be sure - but just animals...

It's absolutely critical for good economists to see the world in this way...I suspect [Landsburg] was "thinking like an economist". The problem is, of course, it flowed over from scientific analysis of human behavior to a commentary on a single individual human being[.]

First of all, let's get this out of the way: Kuehn is wrong. I don't know what Landsburg post Kuehn was reading, but I read this:

But while Ms. Fluke herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatseover. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty...What [Rush] advocates [when asking Sandra Fluke to send him a sex tape] is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I.

Where is the "scientific analysis" there? It's just an ethical judgment! It's just a statement of opinion! How is Landsburg looking at humans as "just another animal" when he's considering things like "ethical symmetry"? Daniel Kuehn is just way off base here.

But another part of Kuehn's post is even more telling. Look at what he says about the merits of Landsburg's case:

[Landsburg] dotted all his i's and crossed all his t's on the analysis, because he's good at thinking like an economist.

No! No he did not! See my previous post. First of all, trading a sex tape for a contraception subsidy might have "ethical symmetry" in Landsburg's opinion, but from an economic standpoint it is less efficient than simply reimbursing Limbaugh for his contribution to the subsidy. Second of all, as Robert Waldmann pointed out in my comment thread, public money was not even involved in Sandra Fluke's case, so Landsburg had the facts wrong. So Daniel Kuehn is wrong again - Landsburg most certainly did not dot his i's or cross his t's.

But yet the narrative that Kuehn pushes appears to push - a clear-thinking, rational, but somewhat Asperger-y economist flouting social norms with an analysis that is insensitive but correct on technical grounds - sounds very plausible. It is a narrative we expect to see played out. It is a narrative that, in my experience, is central to economists' image of their profession's social worth.

This narrative is part of the creation myth of economics itself. That creation myth holds that before Adam Smith et. al., people thought that behavior was governed by norms, but then economists came along ans showed that it's really all about incentives. This, it is believed, freed the human race from their stifling moral straitjackets, allowing them to redesign society along more efficient lines - trading traditional values for material prosperity.

And this myth has a grain of truth. The low social status of merchants and financiers probably was a big barrier to economic development in the world before Adam Smith. And many policies designed to help the poor - for example, anti-usury laws and rent control - can backfire and hurt the very people they are intended to protect. In other words, there are many cases in which clear-headed, rational, dispassionate analysis requires the flouting of society's norms.

But notice that the converse is not true. Just because good economics may require flouting of norms does not mean that flouting norms automatically makes your economic ideas better! You cannot add rationality to your analysis simply by injecting it with a dollop of offensiveness.

Not that this doesn't stop people from trying. The classic example is Larry Summers' speech on women in science; there are plenty of alternative hypotheses for why women don't go into certain fields as much as men, but Summers chose to focus his speech on the idea that women just don't have as much cognitive ability in those areas. The scientific evidence didn't really warrant zooming in on that one particular idea, but the shocking offensiveness of it played to a certain audience - it made Summers appear to be "thinking like an economist."

This is why, when attempting to illustrate what an amazing economist Steve Levitt is in the introduction to Freakonomics, Steven Dubner recounts a story in which Levitt comments that a roadside begger "doesn't have many assets." The observation is banal and obvious, but the fact that it seems insensitive builds up Levitt's legend as an Asperger-y genius.

And now we come back to Steve Landsburg and Daniel Kuehn. The fact that Landsburg has come under assault for being flouting social norms causes Kuehn to give the man a free pass on the logic of his argument. Because Landsburg is offensive, Kuehn completely ignores the fact that Landsburg is also completely wrong on the merits! That's some trick.

In case you hadn't guessed, I'm not a big fan of this aspect of the culture of economics. And the reason is not just that it results in more offensiveness than necessary (thus tarnishing our reputation among non-economists). It's also that the fetishization of offensiveness reduces the quality of our economics. All too often we use offensiveness as a signal of the intellectual quality of an argument, but it's a false signal. If we give a free pass to any idea that pisses off wider society, we are only polluting our own pool of ideas.

My guess is that, like a number of right-leaning economists, Mr Landsburg has a regrettable tendency toward tone-deaf, context-dropping, contrarian provocation based on an unexamined assumption that this is what it means to be bravely rational. It is not.

Bam.

Update 4: Andrew Gelman has this to say about Steve Landsburg:

I’d just like to point out that Landsburg is flouting the norms of most Americans (including Noah Smith, Mark Palko, and I expect most of the readers of this blog) but he’s completely consistent with the norms of a substantial minority (including Rick Santorum, Michael Kinsley, and millions of Limbaugh fans). Landsburg’s “job” (in some sense) is to flout the norms of people like Noah Smith but not to flout the norms of the Rick Santorums and Michael Kinsleys of the world.

In other words, Landsburg allows assholes like Santorum to say "Oh look, we have a smart guy on our side too!"

Another funny thing is, if you read all the way to the bottom of Landsburg's post, you find this:

If it costs $1 to make a package of pills that, because of monopoly power, sells for $30, then anyone who’s willing to pay, say, $15, ought to get the pills … but won’t get them unless they’re subsidized. This is an argument which, if anyone had made it, I’d have applauded… It’s an argument for subsidizing patented drugs in general (or better yet, for reforming the patent system). … but birth control pills are special because they are used primarily by people who are not yet eligible for Medicare.

I am, as a general rule, skeptical about using government power to (partially) counteract the harm done by other exercises of government power (in this case, imposing subsidies to counteract the harm done by the patent system). … But a perfectly reasonable person could well argue that when the first best solution is not available, the second best is better than none.

In other words, he has a counterintuitive but logical argument that the government should mandate taht contraceptives be covered by insurance. Because the government has already imposed a socially costly monopoly via drug patents (actually I'm not sure common contraceptives are still under patent, but let that go), a normally distortionary policy -- subsidies -- may well be welfare improving. The thinking-like-an-economist Asperger's dude would have headlined this without worrying about offending his friends on the right. But, presumably because Landsburg is actually very attuned to the social norms of his own community, he had to hide this -- the only substantive analysis in the post -- under many paragraphs of analytically vacuous dickishness.

Note, however, that his argument is wrong, the deadweight loss from the monopoly will not decrease unless the price the monopolist receives decreases...only if the govt. mandates that the company sell the drug at a lower price is he right, but in practice that's not what happens.

OK. There are two issues here. One is Landsburg. We agree there, including on the point that he thinks there is actually a rational basis for the policy, so the rain man thing is doubly Fail.

The other issue is whether he's right about that rational basis. He says subsidizing a monopolist is welfare improving, you say it is not. This is a basic micro question, which both of you should be better equipped to answer than old Keynesian me. But let's think about it.

Suppose we have a monopoly, so P is greater and Q lower than in competitive equilibrium. Welfare loss. Now suppose we have a non-distortionary lump-sum tax available. Suppose we use that to subsidize purchases of the monopolized product so that the new marginal revenue curve just equals the demand curve. Then we get the same P and Q as in the competitive case. Welfare improved. That's Landsburg's reasoning, as I understand it. And within model-world it seems correct. But you know this stuff better than I do and don't think so, so, why's it wrong?

Noah: You are a freaking hypocrite. How would you describe Delong's "stupidest man" posts. How would you describe Krugman's put down of fellow economists. He took Milton Friedman's passing to call his dishonest. I have no problem with your calling out Landsburg. I think he got some of the facts. And yes, he could have made his points more plainly without resorting to name calling. But the worse culprits that have caused a debasement of dialogue is Delong and Krugman. Where is your outrage?

In other words, there are many cases in which clear-headed, rational, dispassionate analysis requires the flouting of society's norms.

Right, but there are norms and there are norms. The effectiveness of rent control was/is more conventional wisdom than basic value, so saying it doesn't work is in the end not particularly radical. But most of those who engage in norm-flouting aren't trying to determine if any particular policy actually advances its underlying norm, but to overturn the whole notion that we should do anything but let market outcomes run wild (which is itself a norm - one that happens to favor the already-rich). Shifting internal values of the economics profession to favor "silly-clever" thinking may pollute the profession, but it helps conservatives to achieve their goals.

But the worse culprits that have caused a debasement of dialogue is Delong and Krugman. Where is your outrage?

You think DeLong and Krugman insulted those people because it made them sound smarter? I doubt it.

But anyway, if you're wondering why I'm not offended at DeLong and Krugman's insults, I can't really give you a good answer. It doesn't offend me in the slightest. But a guy calling for some woman to make him a sex tape does offend me. Offensiveness is just an opinion.

Landsburg and his apologists should maybe ponder the fact that although both Lenny Bruce and Andrew Dice Clay are well known for saying "socially unacceptable things," only Bruce is widely considered a great comedian. Apparently, there's a bit more to it than "flouting social norms." Talent and honesty may also be involved.

His basic claim wasn't that women are innately worse at science or mathematics, but the distribution of skills is different and that women's distributions feature smaller standard deviations than men's, hence less geniuses and less criminals as well. The problem is that if we only look at the genius end of the talent distribution we'll find more men than women. There is strong statistical evidence for this phenomenon and in a rational society, the claim would be non-controversial. After all, if there was such a hidden well of talent in women, Universities would be losing out by not hiring them and in the event of bias against them we'd expect to see cartel-like explicit enforcement mechs (which we once did) and huge discrepancies in output per researcher in all-women's Universities (which we don't).

Maybe you should start thinking like an economist too then? Seriously, linking to an article by the Guardian which does not contain a single source anywhere of all places to try and character assassinate Larry Summers is extremely vulgar, and seems to be massively and hypocritically taking part in this crowd pleasing exercise you accuse economists of doing.

And do you know what is significantly, massively worse than saying offensive stuff? Ignoring, censoring or chastising ANY argument or analysis BECAUSE it is offensive. And this is a very common feature amongst people in academia, it's also completely counter-productive and in fact immoral. Perhaps (some) economists rush to the defence of seemingly offensive statements because they perceive a greater and more destructive culture of academia only accepting arguments that are politically convenient, and so feel the need to root for the underdog when nobody else does just on principal.

And maybe you think "Steve Levitt on steroids" is still too generous, but even if you think that, please don't say I defended Landsburg's post on Fluke. I've criticized Landsburg's post on several occasions.

I have a response here: http://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/03/noah-smith-forces-me-to-severely.html

You've got me exactly backwards.

On any other topic, it would just be something to note casually to you - but on this particular topic I have to say I really don't appreciate it, Noah. I don't appreciate being associated or accused of defending people who treat others like that.

Interesting series of posts, Mr. Pinion. Don't worry about apparently getting Daniel Kuehn exactly backwards--according to Daniel, that happens with his readers about once a day.

Also it's a good thing you put funny pictures with your posts; it helps take the edge off of "young kid throwing out snap moral judgments." I would steal the idea, except I can't figure out how to center photos on my own blog.

I haven't followed this particular back-and-forth closely, but skimming the posts it amazes me that no one brought up the central issue, ie whether requiring contraceptives as part of health insurance raises moral hazard issues. If it does, then there (might) be economic grounds for Limbaugh-ish arguments, though of course without his grossly offensive language. If it doesn't, then the argument shifts directly from moral hazard to moral posturing.

The analogy is to whether health insurance should cover treatment of a broken leg from skiing. The patient didn't have to go skiing, so why should the rest of us have to pay higher premiums from his reckless choices?

Of course, you never hear this argument, because the whole idea of health insurance rests on the idea that any moral hazard effects are likely to be minimal (no one wants to get sick or injured) and easily addressed (through deductibles and co-pays).

So why would we apply the moral hazard argument to contraceptives? Does anyone - I mean, anyone - actually think that having birth-control pills covered by insurance promotes more non-procreative sex? And does anyone - certain religious zealots aside - think that public policy should have any role in discrouraging non-procreative sex?

Once you look at it this way, the Limbaugh-Landsburgh arguments really just fall away. Essentially, we want insurance to cover the consequences of reasonable behaviour by insured people. And the argument that non-procreative sex is not reasonable behaviour has been resoundingly rejected by roughly 98% of the population.

@Daniel Kuehen, Your protestations made me curious enough to read your original post, and to me, Noahs take on it seems spot on. You say that what Rush/Landsburg said was beyond our social norms, but did not discuss his logic at all, instead diving deep into how an 'economists way of thinking is different from the rest of the society', and how economists should guard against the tendency to violate social norms, that results from their special way of thinking.

I did not see a single sentence in your blog post that discussed Landsburgs thesis from a logical or as you say it elsewhere in your post, 'scientific' point of view.

If you now claim, that all along, you wanted to examine the Rush/Landsburg thesis through the lens of economic theory, the same as what Noah has done in this post, the problem sir, is not with Noahs reading skills, it is with your writing skills!

As someone who left teaching econ, in part because the department I was in required me to use an intro textbook that opened with a chapter about "thinking like an economist," I'd like to propose that using that phrase is proof positive that an individual doesn't understand economics. The job of an economics professor is to teach his/her students to express their ideas in the (extremely limited) language that economists are capable of understanding. If we had more economic theory professors in our graduate schools who understood this, the profession might actually begin to progress instead of regress.

"Once you look at it this way, the Limbaugh-Landsburgh arguments really just fall away. Essentially, we want insurance to cover the consequences of reasonable behaviour by insured people. And the argument that non-procreative sex is not reasonable behaviour has been resoundingly rejected by roughly 98% of the population."

Therefore...Sandra Fluke was testifying to congress that you should be allowed to use your home as collateral to start an insurance company that will meet the insurance demands of 98% of the population?

Out of curiosity...what are the barriers that are preventing you from entering the insurance market? Is it your wife? Is it your friends? Is it the bank? Is it the government? Is it other insurance companies? Who is preventing you from making billions and billions of dollars by meeting the insurance demands of 98% of the population?

If you're so certain that a demand exists...then why don't you put your home where your mouth is? Why don't you quit your job and put your time where your mouth is? Surely investors will be beating down your door once you come up with a business plan that explains exactly how you will tap the huge market for expanded insurance coverage!

Xerographica: "Are you saying that congress listened to Fluke's testimony on their own time? Why was Fluke testifying to congress if she didn't want congress to do something? Does congress do anything for free? "

Please note that this also applies to the GOP panel of right-wing guys talking sh*t, which I haven't noticed too many right-wing economists harping on.

Second, I believe that was Noah was referring to was the insurance issue - you know, the heart of the matter.

" No Noah - you missed the ENTIRE point of my post. My point is precisely that unlike Limbaugh, Landsburg is probably not naturally a jerk. I'm guessing he's probably more like Steve Levitt on steroids."

Daniel, your post had two points - one, that Landsburg isn't a jerk, for which you provided zero evidence.

The second point was that Landsburg was doing good economics, which is flat-out wrong.

The offending sentence that ends with "not being a jerk" was poorly worded. That was my fault. I should have said something like "he probably wasn't motivated by a deep personal misogyny the way Limbaugh was" or something like that instead.

No one until Noah mistook that for me "defending" Landsburg, because the rest of the post was pretty damned clear that my whole point was that while there is a place for what we call "thinking like an economist", Landsburg was doing that in a reckless way.

You can keep telling me that I'm on Landsburg's side until you're blue in the face. I have always been, and I always will be on Fluke's side of this regardless of what you think.

Barry, the last two paragraphs on my post...The Economics of Threesomes...discussed the actual heart of the matter. Well...at least from the perspective of economics, which, last time I checked, was the study of scarcity.

The testimony that Fluke offered to congress is a perfect example of the partial knowledge concept. It's also a perfect example of how people do not understand the opportunity cost concept. As I pointed out in my post on prioritizing public goods...Fluke argued that she shouldn't be forced to decide between quality education and quality healthcare. Not only should she be forced to decide between those two public goods...but all taxpayers should be forced to decide whether they spend their taxes on public education or public healthcare.

It's pretty easy to understand partial knowledge and opportunity cost on an individual basis...the challenge is that it's extremely difficult to comprehend the value of these concepts on a national basis. What are the public goods preferences of our entire nation? Nobody can truly know that answer...all you can know is that you don't want your taxes wasted on things that you do not value. You're probably exceptional in a lot of ways...but this isn't one of them. The question then becomes...can you bring yourself to tolerate, if not respect, other people's values?

Daniel Kuehn: "You can keep telling me that I'm on Landsburg's side until you're blue in the face. I have always been, and I always will be on Fluke's side of this regardless of what you think."

Daniel, you're not telling the truth (again). I'm quoting from memory, since you seem to have removed your original post. You said that Landsburg had dotted his i's and crossed his t's; you praise the economic science aspects of his post.

This is - well, simply and obviously not true, since it's clear that Landsburg was talking out of a lower posterior orifice.

I really shouldn't keep coming back to this comment section, but on this: "You should have realized that Limbaugh was so far beyond the pale that any attempt to rationalize or defend him or rationalize or defend those who defended him would be unacceptable."

Right.

I did not see my self as rationalizing him, or defending him, or rationalizing those who defended him, or defending those who defended him.

I never thought not accusing Landsburg of everything I would accuse Limbaugh of would have amounted to rationalizing what Landsburg said.

One thing you're probably right on - we all should have quickly dismissed all of them and then just stopped engaging it from the beginning. I think I may concede that point.

"I did not see my self as rationalizing him, or defending him, or rationalizing those who defended him, or defending those who defended him."

Daniel, you defended him - both his work, and the idea that he wasn't a jerk.

Here's the trick:

1) We know what he wrote.2) We know what you wrote.3) A lot of us are not part of the economics system - we don't care if you vote against our tenure, our articles or our grad students, because we have none. We are free, here.

A different anonomous wrote:"But I have no idea why you insist that he was being offensive for its own sake, instead of you know... saying that because it's actually his opinion."

Landsburg has a long history of being offensive, "aspergery", and is always heroically ready to come to the aid of the rich and powerful. Here is a link where he argues child sweatshop labor is a good thing, because of course weak willed liberals are forcing them into prostitution and eating from dumpsters.

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/02/10/worked-up/

The comments section is a long and depressing read. Landsburg published many such pieces on his blog. This isn't new for him.

Obviously it's important to favor substantively valid arguments over those that aren't, even when the valid arguments have the disadvantage of being less offensive, but if you ask me, even economists tend to err on the side of not being offensive enough. My case in point is the height tax. Apparently it is conventional among economists to interpret the Mankiw-Weinzierl result as a reductio ad absurdum of utilitarianism, because people (including most economists) find the idea of taxing height silly and/or offensive. To my mind, it's not that utilitarianism is wrong; it's that people are too morally foolish to accept what is clearly, on its own merits, a good policy. (I grant there are valid Machiavellian reasons for opposing a height tax, as well as any other utilitarian policy that is likely to be highly unpopular.)

Now in Landsburg's case, if his argument is weak on substance, that is all the more reason not to criticize it for being offensive. By making a major point of Landsburg's offensiveness and only a minor point of his wrongness, you cheapen rightness relative to decorum.

Anonymous and? Lot's of people actually are in favour of not imposing tariffs to sweatshop countries, even Paul Krugman thinks they may be necessary, it's not even THAT much of a controversial argument these days, that's a pretty poor example. You have still absolutely NO evidence that he is being offensive for the sake of it, rather than expressing his own genuine viewpoint.

"in Landsburg's case, if his argument is weak on substance, that is all the more reason not to criticize it for being offensive. By making a major point of Landsburg's offensiveness and only a minor point of his wrongness, you cheapen rightness relative to decorum."

See, I don't buy it. I think you basically liked Landsburg's comments and thereofre in reality Limbaughs's comments not because of your Olympian economist worldview but because you share their moral prejudices.

The idea that no one ever has a right to be offended about anything is pretty extreme and not very economicaly sound in truth.

I'm sure that if it was your daughter who Limbaugh had spendt three days publicly pooping on you;'d make light of it and come up with a pithy economic argument that shows Rush is perfectly reasonable.

But again, I think those that want to defend Landsburg-Limbaugh are the ones being uneconomical. The true economic response has been the fleeing advertisers.

I'm sure my using the word "pooping" wont offend you as you are so scienftific about these things.

"One thing you're probably right on - we all should have quickly dismissed all of them and then just stopped engaging it from the beginning. I think I may concede that point"

I think you were most right. To me part of being a good econoimst is being economical. Some things can be safely just rejected out of hand. We don't have to give everything the dignity of an intense debate.

I do wonder as you say that you were not defending Limbaugh-Landsborg why you got rid of the original post.

evilsax: "I really have no clue why Krugan and Delong are supposedly so offensive. "

It's simple - they're right about the major issues of the day, and are calling out the people who are wrong. They are pointing out that they've been wrong for years, and that their arguments are rubbish.

You know what anonymous (the other one). You are right. I don't know if Landsburg intentionally tries to be shocking. What I do know is Landsburg is a cancer. He believes one thing to the extreme and it is the libertarian ideal of self ownership. For him it is a straight line from taxation (taking my earnings) to forced labor (taking my labor) to slavery (denying that I own myself). Taxes and high prices are akin to slavery to him.

That is his morality, and economic reasoning is his cover. He needs to be called out on his bad economics.

You tell me if the article I referenced is really about protectionist legislation or an economic cover to push his ideology.

Landsburg begins "Back in 1992, a ten year old Bangladeshi girl named Moyna was one of 50,000 children who lost their jobs in the wake of protectionist legislation sponsored by the execrable union-backed Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa."

That's a lot of influence attributed to a bill that was merely introduced, not passed, not signed by the President, and never became a law. What are we to make of a person who, just as he did in the Fluke piece, is willing to lie about the basic facts of the question at hand to press his ideology.

From his false attribution to legislation that never happened, Landsburg goes on to write: "Tom Harkin doesn’t loathe her; he just doesn’t give a damn about her. Ditto for the union goons and the American business owners who tout their made-in-America, untouched-by-Third-World-hands product lines. Those people (by and large) aren’t hateful; they’re just mercenary and callous. It’s their customers–the ones who would cheerfully pay extra for the privilege of supporting a $30-an-hour middle class American instead of a struggling $1-an-hour Bangladeshi—who are motivated by something like hate. If hate is too strong a word, then let’s just call it bigotry, which is, after all, what it is."

So economists, including Krugman, worry about protectionist legislation, but most, including Krugman also indicate that sometimes it is necessary. I doubt Krugman supports child sweatshop labor (the hero of Landsburg's story was a 10 year old girl who pounded rocks into gravel while adult unemployment all around her was in the high double digits).

So what are we supposed to learn from Landsburg? Harkin is a liberal and doesn't give a damn about Pakistani kids? Union members are goons? Customers who buy American are bigots? Or as he states in the comments that child sweat shop labor really is good for the child because the only other alternative is

Or is the take away supposed to be simply that free markets are morally superior? This is an attractive, simple, and compelling story for a lot of people, and constant retelling of it by Landsburg and others somewhat explains the political drift of the country.

Bad economists, like Landsburg, need to be called out for bad arguments. They are warping a lot of minds. Either that or the profession needs a basic code of ethics.

This is slightly off-topic, but since it's another one of the things economists like to forget: Adam Smith thought norms were hugely important - he wrote a whole book on them. It wasn't really until Gary Becker that economists have taken an odd pleasure in being offensive for offensiveness' sake.

Xerographica: Congress doesn't just appropriate money -- it also makes laws. In this case the law (as interpreted by HHS) forced a private entity (Georgetown U) to pay. The cost of the congresspeople's time is not at all the nonexistant public subsidy Landsburg alleged. He was wrong on the facts and you aren't even bothering to check.

On Summers his main point was that only people obsessed with their jobs win the ruthless competition for the top spots. He claimed he did econ research 15 hours a day (back in the day). Someone ironically asked if he did econ reasearch in the shower. I thought "of course he did". The claim is that no family can function without a non-work obsessed adult and that is almost always the woman. The bit about the variance of cognitive skills was an aside (and just one of many examples of nonsense following from the assumption that all random variables are normally distributed).

A better example would be the memo arguing that there is to little pollution in developing countries. - it reads like a parody of the Arpsbargery economist because it is - he asked an aid to write such a parody and he signed without reading. Note he does not have Arpsbarger's syndrome -- he sometimes chooses to be outrageous knowing what he is doing (but sometimes incomprehensibly forgetting the meaning of "leak").

"See, I don't buy it. I think you basically liked Landsburg's comments and thereofre in reality Limbaughs's comments not because of your Olympian economist worldview but because you share their moral prejudices. "

'You dare to argue against us!?!?!? You dare have the audacity to defend someone we find offensive!?!?! You must be one of them!!!!' This is disgusting and morally repugnant groupthink circlejerking 'us vs them' attitudes that exist on the internet that needs to be utterly annihilated, you are not a psychologist. Please stop with vulgar pop psychology. Please stop assuming everyone has some evil ulterior motive.

Why should I bother delving into minutiae with you if you can't explain to me exactly why I should trust congress with my taxes in the first place? Can you make an economic argument for 538 congresspeople spending 150 million people's taxes?

"'You dare to argue against us!?!?!? You dare have the audacity to defend someone we find offensive!?!?! You must be one of them!!!!' This is disgusting and morally repugnant groupthink circlejerking 'us vs them' attitudes that exist on the internet that needs to be utterly annihilated, you are not a psychologist. Please stop with vulgar pop psychology. Please stop assuming everyone has some evil ulterior motive."

Anonymous I don't need to dig for an ulterior motive. I heard what Limbaugh said. I have Landsbourg, Daniel and you sticking up for him.

You are a pathetic puerile juvenille cheering while the shoolyard bully picks on a little girl. I dont think everyone's motives are bad. But yours are. Your too cowardly to pick on people yourself but you applaud when Limbaugh does. Pathetic. You can't even use your real name.

As for your big talk about "annhilating" something going on the Internet, it's your friend Rush and his type who are being broken up. Free speech to call people like him and you out will continue on the Internet. Love it or leave it.

Robert: "A better example would be the memo arguing that there is to little pollution in developing countries. - it reads like a parody of the Arpsbargery economist because it is - he asked an aid to write such a parody and he signed without reading. Note he does not have Arpsbarger's syndrome -- he sometimes chooses to be outrageous knowing what he is doing (but sometimes incomprehensibly forgetting the meaning of "leak"). "

And aside from every other thing, it was factually wrong - I'd bet money that Nigeria is *more* polluted than the USA. If Summers disagrees, I'll pay for procuring some typical Nigerian water for him to drink for a week.

I never suggested that "no one ever has a right to be offended about anything." Indeed, I'm all for getting offended. What would be the fun in saying offensive stuff if nobody got offended by it?

And I'm pretty sure I don't share Limbaugh's moral prejudices with respect to birth control (though I may share some of Landsburg's, in as much as we both think like economists). As I said on Twitter, my own reasons for favoring birth control coverage mandates are probably even more offensive than Limbaugh's reasons for opposing them.

Furthermore, nobody should receive so much moral outrage for having the audacity to have a different perspective from the conventional American 'progressive' wisdom, you guys need to grow the f*** up"

It isn't that I need to grow the "f" up, it's that Landsburg, and apparently now you, need to have a basic honesty in your approach. Otherwise you are preaching ideology, not science.

Landsburg attributed the closing of a Bangladeshi gravel factory, one that employed 10 year old girls who started years earlier as it's labor force, to US legislation that never passed, never was signed, never became law. Please use your best economics argument to explain exactly how that works?

If the basic facts are distorted, how are we to draw proper conclusions? As Landsburg paints it we are to conclude that Harken is indifferent, legislation is bad, "Buy American" is really bigotry, and those who employ 10 year old girls are really doing everyone a big favor.

Or, if we knew the real economics, we might have learned something completely different like populations that employ only the children and not the adults stay in cycles of poverty for generations. But actual hard problems just aren't as fun as making fun of progressive wisdom and self righteous indignation.

re: "I do wonder as you say that you were not defending Limbaugh-Landsborg why you got rid of the original post."

Because I don't have the energy to continue to clarify it.

Noah grossly mischaracterized my views, and then didn't show any interest in correcting it when we talked over email. I'd rather keep the my blog unambiguous. Maybe that was a mistake, but that was the decision.

I'd rather have a new post that I think is straight-forward that doesn't need clarifying than the old post that I think is straight-forward that apparently does need clarifying.

If Noah can confuse it and then continue to confuse it even after talking to him, then perhaps others will too.

Maybe it was the wrong decision - but as long as my blog has my name on it, I'd prefer it only contain stuff that's unambiguous and that I stand by.

The better option obviously would have been to keep the post and to have a more accurate representation of it on here.

Noah grossly mischaracterized my views, and then didn't show any interest in correcting it when we talked over email. I'd rather keep the my blog unambiguous. Maybe that was a mistake, but that was the decision."

Daniel, I read your post. Others hear read it.

At this point accusing others of mischaracterizing it, or of lacking reading comprehension is just a way of denying what you said.

Anybody with any sincere interest in what I think of Landsburg ought to take my own position on it more seriously.

Psst, Daniel. Anyone with a sincere interest in your views would probably want to examine all of your publicly expressed opinions, including the post that you recently took down. From the sounds of it you have some trouble taking responsibility for the turbidity of your prose.